[Live-demo] "descoping" OSGeo-Live

Activity Workshop mail at activityworkshop.net
Wed Apr 19 11:54:22 PDT 2017

On 14/04/17 21:00, live-demo-request at lists.osgeo.org wrote:
> While projects should rightly be concerned if OSGeo-Live only uses 
> OpenHub metrics to assess project health, they should be significantly 
> more concerned about the general public's assessment of their project.
You're correct to say that these metrics should not be the only criterion for
removing projects from OSGeo-Live.  There are so many other (in my view more
important) factors to consider:
- is the software useful?  Is the software reliable?
- is the inclusion straightforward or does it require lots of building /
packaging / patching / dependency-resolution work from the OSGeo-Live team?
- does it take up a lot of disk space?
- is the team responsive to questions from the OSGeo-Live team, are the
developers helpful with providing information and documentation?
- and many other factors too of course.

> I think it should be a priority of all projects to try an ensure their 
> OpenHub metrics reflect the true health of their project ...
Well, OpenHub (BlackDuck) is a company.  If (in your opinion) their numbers
aren't providing a useful picture then it is arguable whether this should be put
at the door of all the unpaid open software developers, or alternatively at the
door of the company's staff and systems.


More information about the Osgeolive mailing list